Re: [CFRG] Please review draft-ietf-drip-rid

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 9/17/21 1:35 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
>
> I am not aware of any PQ signature that will work here and accepted 
> for production systems.
>
> That I can’t comment on – except that among the NIST PQC candidates, 
> Falcon seems both fast enough and “compact” enough, offering smallest 
> key- and signature-size (small as PQ goes 😉).
>

I will keep an 'eye' on it.  But I can only propose something is 
'standardized'.

Otherwise I would be using a Xoodyak equiv to cSHAKE!

> So, I continue to work with pre-PQ so vendors can make hardware today 
> to meet their 2023 mandate to support these rules.  That means 
> manufacturing soon.
>
> Sure. You know your use case better.
>

As often the case, by the time things reach this point a lot of water 
has flowed under the bridge.

I am on the ASTM call right now, but the debate is on RF attenna 
location to meet coverage pattern.  Not a component that I can contrbute 
on, but REALLY important to the FAA.

>
> On 9/17/21 11:34 AM, Michael Scott wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:21 PM Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         I have not read the draft, but my answer to Watson is -
>         because there is not enough room for Post-Quantum
>         certificates, and Ed25519 is not an acceptable alternative for
>         some of us.
>
>     I for one would be interested in just how extensive this "some of
>     us" group is. In the interests of transparency I think they should
>     step forward and identify themselves. It is a view I respect, but
>     personally disagree with.
>
>     If people in good faith are willing to make major efforts to put
>     forward proposals to this forum, it would only be fair for them to
>     be aware of the extent of that grouping who would reject such
>     proposals out-of-hand.
>
>     Mike
>
>         --
>         Regards,
>         Uri
>
>         There are two ways to design a system. One is to make is so
>         simple there are obviously no deficiencies.
>         The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious
>         deficiencies.
>                                  -  C. A. R. Hoare
>
>
>         On 9/17/21, 09:59, "CFRG on behalf of Watson Ladd"
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> on
>         behalf of [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             I've read your email and have only one response.
>
>             Why?
>
>             There is enough room for an entire certificate chain using
>         Ed25519 and
>             compact encodings. That would be a lot simpler.
>
>             Sincerely,
>             Watson Ladd
>
>             --
>             Astra mortemque praestare gradatim
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             CFRG mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>         <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>         _______________________________________________
>         CFRG mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>         <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     CFRG mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg  <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg